Consensus
A wiki is a body of ideas that a community is willing to know and maintain. Any information can be altered or deleted by anyone. Wiki pages represent consensus because it's much easier to delete insults and remove wiki spam than indulge them. What remains generates new ideas by the interactive integration of multiple points of view. The previous version of a page is always available, and edits from a single IP are rolled into a single change, so one person from one IP can't by themselves irretrievably delete material. Be bold. The community encourages users to be bold when updating the wiki. Wikis like ours develop faster when everybody helps to fix problems, correct grammar, add facts, make sure wording is accurate, etc. The wiki not only allows you to add, revise, and edit articles: it wants you to do it. This does require some amount of politeness, but it works. You'll see. Of course, others here will edit what you write. Do not take it personally! They, like all of us, just wish to make the wiki as good as it can possibly be. Consensus Consensus is the community resolution when opposing parties set aside their differences and agree on a statement that is agreeable to all, even if only barely. Disputes are settled by editing and discussion, not voting. Discussion should aim towards building a consensus. Consensus is a group discussion where everyone's opinions are heard and understood, and a solution is created that respects those opinions. Consensus is not what everyone agrees to, nor is it the preference of the majority. Consensus results in the best solution that the group can achieve at the time. Remember, the root of "consensus" is "consent". This means that even if parties disagree, there is still overall consent to move forward in order to settle the issue. This requires co-operation among editors with different interests and opinions. Consensus is not a majority vote. Every opinion counts. Consensus accounts for dissent and addresses it, although it does not always accommodate it. An option preferred by 51% of people is generally not enough for consensus. An option that is narrowly preferred is almost never consensus. A vote may help to organize discussion around specific proposals, but this can sometimes breed conflict and division. One problem with a yes-or-no vote on a proposal is that there may be a consensus for a middle option. Even a "middle ground" option can be insufficient, as forcing people to choose between options may prevent new ideas from coming forward that would gain more support. Another problem with voting is that it might prevent a real discussion, as voters do not have to justify their position. This prevents people from evaluating the underlying reasons for a vote, and criticizing weak or inaccurate reasoning for a vote. It also prevents people from coming up with alternative ways to satisfy the voter's concern, with a less divisive course of action. The best way to determine consensus is to actually read and understand each person's arguments, even if they are divided on the surface. A consensus can be found by looking for common ground and synthesizing the best solution that the group can achieve at that time. Consensus can change. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and changes are sometimes reasonable. When challenging an old consensus, it may help to explain what you think has changed in that time. How to achieve consensus *Make use of the bold, revert, discuss cycle:*#Be bold in your editing. *#If you disagree with someone's changes, revert or modify it. *#Rather than edit warring, begin a discussion. Be patient. Reach a compromise, and begin the cycle again. *In a discussion, begin by understanding the group's interests, and work towards a proposal that meets those collective interests.*#Freely exchange your interests and concerns. Also try to understand the interests of the community at large. *#Offer a proposal that best meets everyone's interests and concerns, to the extent that they are reasonable. *#Modify the proposal based on further feedback from the group. *#If necessary, begin a new discussion and repeat the consensus building process with a wider range of editors. How not to achieve consensus *Don't edit war. *Don't simply state your position over and over, without explaining your underlying concerns and interests. *Don't canvass in an inappropriate way other editors who agree with you. *Don't give up when people disagree on a specific proposal. *Don't take a hard line position to extract concessions from other editors. This often backfires, and undermines the reasonableness of your viewpoint.